Themes

1) Sense of right or wrong (Conscience) The narrators internal conflict indicates he has a conscience. He must do his duty as a colonial policeman. He dislike the native Burmese whohatred him and cause him to undergo great physical pain or mental anguishas their foreign oppressor. The narrator also perfectly well understands why the natives dislike him. His official position, not his moral conscience, causes the narrator to act in the way that he does. He upholds his office precisely and keeps the native Burmese in their subordinate and dependent place. As a colonial official, the narrator must not let himself become a public display (spectacle)in front of the native crowds. Not shooting the elephant would make him seem like a coward, so he shoots the elephant. For example, I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool. (from line 10 to 12 on page 43) The narrators moral conscience appears in the moment when the corpse of the Burmese crushed by the elephant comes to his attention. The narrator says that the man lay sprawled in a crucified posture, invoking all of the emotional symbolism that the term crucified creates. The elephant, too, especially in its pain-wracked death, evokes in the narrator feelings of terrible pity. The narrator cannot be comfort even by his knowledge that he acted within the law. For example, The tortured gasps continued as steadily as the ticking of a clock. In the end I could not stand it any longer and get away. (from line 20 to 22 on page 42) Law, indeed, opposes conscience in Shooting an Elephant. The brutal facts associated with imperialism are in direct opposition to the individuals moral analysis of the situation.

2) Culture Clash The obvious culture clash in Shooting an Elephant is that between the colonizers and the colonized, the British and the Burmese. The British Empire colonized the Burmese. The British Empire represents the industrial West with its notions of civic administration and its technological excellence. The Burmese represent a powerless pre-industrial society set upon by an industrial superpower looking beyond its own borders for a field of action. The Burmese dislike the British; the British humiliate the Burmese. For example, I was all for Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British. (from line 9 to 11 on page 32).Less obvious, but far more important, are two other culture clashes. The first is the ethical difference setting the narrator, as a representative of the West, apart from the native Burmese, who belong to the local village-culture and live in a pre-industrial world from which the West itself has long since emerged. The narrator does not want to kill the elephant; the crowd does. The narrator personifies the animal and feels the tragedy of its painful death at his own hands, for example, He was dying, very slowly and in great agony, but in some world remote from me where not even a bullet could damage him further. A felt that I had got to put an end to that dreadful noise. (from line 11 to 15 on page 42); the crowd strips it bare of its flesh within a few hours of its having fallen to the ground. For example, ;and I was told they had stripped his body almost to the bones by the afternoon. (from line 24 to 25 on page 42).The dead Burmese seems far more important to the narrator than to the crowd. The crowds thirst for violence is very different from the narrators hope of avoiding it. The second obvious culture clash takes place within the narrator himself. Here the personal culture of an ethical Western individual is at odds with his institutional culture; the narrators personal valueshis sense that the dead Burmese has been, in some manner, crucified, and that the elephant is a victim pure and simple clash with his duty as a colonial policeman.

3) Order and disorder

Order dominateswhen the mahout (elephant handler) ties up the elephant and keeps him under control. The disorder rule when the elephant escapes and ravages the bazaar.For example, early one morning the subinspector at a police station on the other end of the town rang up on the phone and said that an elephant was ravaging the bazaar. (from line 12 to 15 on page 33)The elephant is out of control because he killed a cow and raided some fruit-stalls and devoured the stock in the bazaar. For example, It had already destroyed somebodys bamboo but, killed a cow and raided some fruit stalls and devoured the stock. (from line 5 to 7 on page 34).A policemanis the one who obey the order too. This can be seen why the narrator cannot avoid the unpleasant duty of shooting the elephant. Disorder-as-violence appears on many occasions directed against the British: a. when random Burmese spit betel juice on passing European women For example, but if a European woman went through the bazaars alone somebody would probably spit betel juice over her dress. (from line 7 to 9 on page 31). b. when Buddhist priests laugh spitefully at the narrator For example, There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans. (from line 2 to 5 on page 32) c. when the umpire on the playing field looks conveniently the other way while a Burmese player fouls the very same narrator For example, ;when a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter, (from line 11 to 13 on page 31)

4) Prejudice and tolerance The narrator explains how one becomes prejudiced, a state of mind in which one suppresses conscience. Orwell finds himself in the role of policeman. Even though his personal judgments are sympathetic toward the native people, he has to remain dutiful to his job and the empire. For example Theoretically- and secretly, of course- I was al for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British, (from line 9 to 11, page 32).This, in turn requires treating the locals as inferiors. Organizationally and technically, the locals are inferior. Their society cannot win over the society that has colonized them. The native Burmese give in, and the British becomes overlords. This, too, creates an establish role on the British Empire. This both colonized and colonizer, the Burmese and the British, will now be prejudged. Both sides tolerate each other and remain rather neutral. Externally, this appears to be the moral thing to do.